Talk:1999 Tempe military base shooting

Assessment
@Cameron Dewe as you're the person who assessed this article, any particular issues you see that need to be improved? I would like to get this one as high quality as possible, since I think it's quite interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @PARAKANYAA: My initial reaction upon reading the lead section was that I didn't know where this shooting had occurred. I am aware of Tempe being in the United States, although not exactly where, (see Tempe, Arizona). But to discover it is also a location in South Africa surprised me. This is not stated up front in the first sentence of the lead, where it is needed to orient the reader. Had that not been the case, I would have assessed it at a higher class. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cameron Dewe ...fair point. That is now fixed. Any other criticisms, even if they aren't related to the assessment? I want to make this the best it can be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Funeral
The way the information is presented in the funeral section is a bit confusing. It mentions that the PAC applied for an interdict, but stops there and doesn't say what happened next regarding the petition. It then discusses plans for the funeral, and that it "was expected to take place 2 October", which suggests (incorrectly?) to the reader that it did not. But the article then goes on to discuss things that happened during the funeral, without actually saying that it took place, whether it was on that date, or whether it was a military funeral as demanded. I understand that sources may be hard to come by, but the reader shouldn't be left to assume such things.

Also, Swayi Mqojana's later comments are mixed in with speeches made during the funeral, which is confusing as they are about the police action, which isn't brought up in the article until the end. The text also presents several statements in quotation marks, but "slay whites" and "teach whites a lesson" are indirect reports from the AP wire article, not actual direct quotations. These should be attributed to the news source, or just have the quotation marks removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Paul 012 You can remove the DYK if you want if that causes issues with it. I don't really care. The reason it's phrased like this is because there's a weird discrepancy in the coverage where I can't actually figure out if the funeral was an SANDF funeral that they were forced to do by PAC, or if it was just something PAC did on its own. As far as I can tell, the sources don't say, just that they applied to force them to do it. But honestly I probably just didn't look hard enough so I'll check again, something probably says. The first sources about the funeral are from October 3, but they don't say if the funeral happened then or the day before, while there is a source saying it was planned for the second, which is why the date is phrased like that.
 * I'll check the quotes bit out and see if I can find more on what they actually said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue that should affect eligibility for DYK, so no problem there. My comments are just suggestions for improving the prose. I quite understand the limitations. For me, when there are discrepancies among sources, I've found that explaining the details in a footnote is quite helpful for understandability. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed some of the issues you mentioned (Mqojana's quote, plus the stuff in quotation marks that shouldn't have been), will try to work on the others. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)